“The study of why our moral sense and cultural moral norms exist".
Interestingly, for Hegel, this historical question is central the ethics proper. Both what we "have done," and what we "ought to do," are ultimately driven by reason's propelling humanity towards the accomplishment of human freedom. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I didn't claim or imply that it did. You make it an empty phrase, Mark, by confessing you do not know what "our ultimate moral goals" are and yet propose that a "science of morality" can describe conditions whivh determine them. This kind of jugglery is of no use to moral philosophy.In no way does the science of morality (as the study of what is and has been descriptively moral) make our ultimate moral goals an empty phrase — Mark S
The principles that underlie descriptively moral behaviors are what people have thought of as moral (because it has been encoded into the biology underlying our moral sense) for as long as we have lived in cooperative societies. — Mark S
“The science of morality studies the psychological, neurological, and cultural foundations of moral judgment and behavior”. — Mark S
The potential to "do anything." — Count Timothy von Icarus
That what is thought of as moral is biologically encoded is at best a hypothesis and at worse an unsubstantiated assertion. In either case it is in need of scientific evidence. What is that evidence? — Fooloso4
I didn't claim or imply that it did. You make it an empty phrase, Mark, by confessing you do not know what "our ultimate moral goals" are and yet propose that a "science of morality" can describe conditions which determine them. This kind of jugglery is of no use to moral philosophy. — 180 Proof
You make it an empty phrase, Mark, by confessing you do not know what "our ultimate moral goals" are and yet propose that a "science of morality" can describe conditions whivh determine them. This kind of jugglery is of no use to moral philosophy. — 180 Proof
Isn't our knowledge of hormones scientific evidence? — Athena
All social animals are biologically influenced to conform to social expectations ... — Athena
That what is thought of as moral is biologically encoded is at best a hypothesis and at worse an unsubstantiated assertion. In either case it is in need of scientific evidence. What is that evidence? — Fooloso4
If the foundations of moral judgement and behavior are biologically encoded then they is not cultural. To the extent those foundations are cultural they differ from culture to culture. — Fooloso4
I don't know what that is.Do you have a conclusive argument justifying an imperative moral system? — Mark S
You have not proposed any moral prescriptions, so I'm not sure what you're asking. And I've previously stated my position with respect to your so-called "science of morality":If not, what moral guidance would you suggest as superior to what I propose here?
I agree, but I think Mark is saying something more than this. Being a social animal is not a principle that underlies and encodes what it is that people think is moral. Within a societies there may be agreement but between societies there may be disagreement as to what behavior is and is not acceptable. He points to cooperation within a society but this is not the same thing as cooperation between societies. And even within a society we may cooperate with some members while conspiring against others. — Fooloso4
The evidence is in 1) the explanatory power for virtually all the diversity, contradictions, and strangeness of descriptively moral behaviors as parts of cooperation strategies, 2) huge superiority over any competing hypothesis, 3) simplicity, 4) integration with the rest of science, and other normal criteria for scientific truth. — Mark S
Right. I would add that some will cooperatively conspire against others (or other societies) while believing they are acting morally. — Mark S
I've only read a few introductory summaries about Hegel but did not see that connection. — Mark S
“The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth. One must worship the state as a terrestrial divinity.” “A single person is something subordinate, and as such he must dedicate himself to the ethical whole. Hence, if the state claims life, the individual must surrender it.”Jan 6, 2017
Hegel on Worshipping the State - Library of Social Science — Library of Social Science
First, the definition is for the science of morality, not morality itself. Is it circular? No.
Ask the most philosophically ignorant person you can find “what is right and wrong”. They will cheerfully tell you what is right and wrong by their moral sense and cultural moral norms. No more of a ‘definition’ of morality is required. My definition generates no “circularity” issues.
Further, defining morality beyond what is “right and wrong”
for example as Kant’s categorical imperatives, would make the definition nonsense. You could have the scientific study of cultural Kantian norms or Kantian sense motivations - incoherent nonsense.
What is your basis for claiming that what descriptively moral behavior ‘is’ has zero relevance for what morality imperatively ‘ought’ to be?
Any proposed imperative moral system that is not harmonious with the principles encoded into our moral sense will be rejected as “not what morality is about”.
Also, remember there is no agreement and there may never be agreement on what morality imperatively ought to be.
Do you have a better suggestion for moral guidance?
If you want to study anthropology, go ahead. But don't make the mistake of thinking you are doing ethics. — Banno
I am not trying to do ethics. I am trying to 1) show how the science of descriptively moral behaviors can be useful in ethical investigations into what we ought to do, and 2), in that absence of conclusively argued-for imperative oughts, that science is an excellent source of moral guidance. — Mark S
None of those are views I advocate.But in your view... — Mark S
I am not trying to do ethics. I am trying to 1) show how the science of descriptively moral behaviors can be useful in ethical investigations into what we ought to do, and 2), in that absence of conclusively argued-for imperative oughts, that science is an excellent source of moral guidance. — Mark S
I don't see how this is 'not trying to do ethics' when you appear to be trying to develop a foundation for morality. Is 'moral guidance' a separate avenue of study to morality?
You may have spoken to this already, but what are you hoping to achieve with all your threads on morality? — Tom Storm
You appear to not understand what is included in empirical evidence for scientific truth. — Mark S
The principles that underlie descriptively moral behaviors are what people have thought of as moral (because it has been encoded into the biology underlying our moral sense) for as long as we have lived in cooperative societies. — Mark S
The problem is that, on the one hand, you are claiming that this "science of morality" does not inform us what we ought to do, and then, on the other, you say that this science is a perfectly adequate informant of "moral guidence" (i.e., what one ought to do). — Bob Ross
You appear to not understand what is included in empirical evidence for scientific truth.
— Mark S
I think it is the other way around. — Fooloso4
But in your view...
— Mark S
None of those are views I advocate. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.